Here's A Bomb

[Aragon]

I think BlazingStar was referring to this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-burke-responds-to-australian-couples-synod-presentation

 

I get where Cardinal Burke is coming from, but I think sometimes in his enthusiasm to hate the sin he forgets to express himself in a way that shows love for the sinner.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Aragon

[Lilllabettt]

I think BlazingStar was referring to this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-burke-responds-to-australian-couples-synod-presentation

 

I get where Cardinal Burke is coming from, but I think sometimes in his enthusiasm to hate the sin he forgets to express himself in a way that shows love for the sinner.

 

 

Can you quote what part of what he said is verbal abuse?  Or demonstrates a "lack of love." Even if you don't agree with the approach he recommends (I think its a reasonable one that every family in this situation needs to seriously consider)  think a fair-minded person would struggle to say that what he has to say is abusive or expressed without love for sinners. 

Edited October 31, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[PhuturePriest]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/how-cardinal-burke-welcomed-home-a-gay-activist

 

It turns out Burke not only reprimands sin, but welcomes home sinners.

[veritasluxmea]

 

Speaking to LifeSiteNews on a short break from the Synod yesterday, Cardinal Burke, the Prefect of the Vatican's Apostolic Signitura, called the Pirolas’ question a ‘delicate’ question that needs to be addressed in a “calm, serene, reasonable and faith-filled manner.”

“If homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered, which indeed they are — reason teaches us that and also our faith — then, what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living [in] a disordered relationship with another person?” asked the cardinal.

Burke added, “we don't want our children” to get the “impression” that sexual relationships outside God’s plan are alright, “by seeming to condone gravely sinful acts on the part of a family member.” 

...

He added, however, that “families have to find a way to stay close to a child in this situation — to a son or grandson, or whatever it may be — in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-burke-responds-to-australian-couples-synod-presentation

 

 

If the rumors are true and +Burke is about to be dispatched to the Knights of Malta, I hope the appointment comes with a ban on giving him a microphone. This man's inability to speak with even a whiff of human compassion is intrinsically disordered if you ask me.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/card-burke-intrinsically-disordered

 

wait, who's being verbally abusive here? 

 

He's a Catholic Bishop talking to a Catholic reporter. He used language which is contained in everyone's catechism. He talks about not condoning a homosexual relationship while still respecting the people in the relationship. I don't see what's verbally abusive about that. 

 

The only thing I would add to his remarks is that I believe people should remain close to their child/grandchild simply for the sake of who they are, not just in order to draw them closer to the Faith. Even if it was impossible to help them, you should still have as much as a relationship as prudently possible with them. I believe that's what he's saying and I know it's just a brief remark, but I just wanted to be clearer here myself. 

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

He added, however, that “families have to find a way to stay close to a child in this situation — to a son or grandson, or whatever it may be — in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered.”

 

Yeah, this is one part that can easily be interpreted to mean: "Catholic family members have an obligation to lure a child away from his or her parents."  I don't believe that's really what he meant, but the phrasing is poor. 

[truthfinder]

Yeah, this is one part that can easily be interpreted to mean: "Catholic family members have an obligation to lure a child away from his or her parents."  I don't believe that's really what he meant, but the phrasing is poor. 

I agree the wording is poor; I interpreted it differently - I read it as staying close to the homosexual person that they can be brought out of homosexual relationships if they're in one. 

[Lilllabettt]

Yeah, this is one part that can easily be interpreted to mean: "Catholic family members have an obligation to lure a child away from his or her parents."  I don't believe that's really what he meant, but the phrasing is poor. 

 

 

I think its fairly clear from the context that the Cardinal is referring to a (presumably adult) child who is themselves engaged in a homosexual relationship and the obligation to stay close to that child so as to draw them away from it. 

 

I guess he could have said "son or daughter" instead of child.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Aragon]

You know I'm pretty surprised that people can't see for themselves the many problems with Cardinal Burke's interview with lifesitenews. It's all about his tone and striking a right balance between condemning the sin while loving the sinner. 

Let's list a few of the issues:

1. The repeated use of the word 'disordered' to describe homosexuality pathologises gay people. 99.99% of people are familiar with the psychiatric meaning of 'disorder', they are not familiar with the teleological meaning of the term (which is how the catechism uses it). Given this your average Catholic or non-Catholic reading Burke's words is going to take away from it that homosexuals are mentally ill. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if +Burke believed this. Certainly, many of the writers at lifesitenews.com think this is the case. 

 

2. The use of the term 'suffers from same sex attraction' rather than the appropriate 'experiences' or 'has' same sex attraction further pathologises gay people and paints their homosexuality as an illness.

 

3. I thought +Burke was going to redeem himself when he began talking about families needing to stay close to their gay relatives, however by adding "in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered" he ignores the primary reason for staying close to gay relatives: because they're worthy of our love and are made in the image of God. 

 

4. On that note, while talking extensively about how disordered homosexuality is and the dangers it poses to children, Cardinal Burke completely neglects to affirm the human dignity of homosexual persons. He could have at least given some balance by presenting the Church's teaching on how homosexual people are to be accepted with "compassion, respect, and sensitivity".

 

 

One of my gay friends was really, really upset after reading this interview (in the secular media, not on lifesite) and it took a lot of effort to re-assure her that I didn't think about her like this. That she'd always be welcome at my dinner table. Cardinal Burke's words do more to alienate people than invite them to the Church. They go on and on about the sinfulness of homosexuality without once affirming the dignity of the homosexual person.

 

Do you have close gay friends or family members? Is this how you'd talk about them?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Aragon

[Lilllabettt]

 

 

Do you have close gay friends or family members? Is this how you'd talk about them?

 

 

This is how I would talk to family members ABOUT how to deal with the adult gay people in our lives who have freely chosen to engage in gay sexual relationships.

We are talking about adults. Adults who make choices about who they sleep with.

Guess what?  

A gay family member who chooses to have homosexual sex makes a choice.

Then their family and the people who love them have to make choices about how to deal with that.

The primary obligation a parent has is to the well being of their children NOT their gay friend or family member. 

Every family is different but this is a side of the decision that every family in this situation should weigh carefully and consider. 

Parents do not have to endanger their children to assuage the feelings of gay people who have freely chosen to engage in gay sex. 

Edited October 31, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Aragon]

This is how I would talk to family members ABOUT how to deal with the adult gay people in our lives who have freely chosen to engage in gay sexual relationships.

We are talking about adults. Adults who make choices about who they sleep with.

Guess what?  

A gay family member who chooses to have homosexual sex makes a choice.

Then their family and the people who love them have to make choices about how to deal with that.

The primary obligation a parent has is to the well being of their children NOT their gay friend or family member. 

Every family is different but this is a side of the decision that every family in this situation should weigh carefully and consider. 

Parents do not have to endanger their children to assuage the feelings of gay people who have freely chosen to engage in gay sex. 

 

So the answer to my question then is no, you don't have any close gay friends and so you clearly don't see a problem with talking about people in this way. I am not talking about the particular situation which the Pirola's brought up at the Synod. Only parents themselves know the best course of action to take for their particular situation. I am talking about Cardinal Burke's response; a response which was made publicly read by thousands and thousands of people - homosexual and heterosexual, Catholic and non-Catholic.

 

Anyone who actually cares for the people who this issue affects knows that discourse which pathologises homosexual people is alienating and hurtful. There are far better ways to express the Church's teaching on this issue, and the inability of certain Catholics and members of the hierarchy to realise just how horrible they sound when talking about this issue is a grave concern. 

Edited November 1, 2014 by Aragon

[Aragon]

Here's a good post written by a faithful SSA Catholic on this issue: http://spiritualfriendship.org/2013/08/04/intrinsically-disordered-how-not-to-talk-about-homosexuality/

[Lilllabettt]

So the answer to my question then is no, you don't have any close gay friends and so you clearly don't see a problem with talking about people in this way. 

 

Lets try some reading comprehension shall we.

 

 

This is how I would talk to family members ABOUT how to deal with the adult gay people in our lives who have freely chosen to engage in gay sexual relationships.

 

 

I don't have a family and so I don't talk to my non existent family about how to handle people in our lives who choose to have gay sex.

That doesn't mean I don't know and love gay people.

But way to get out your jump to conclusions mat.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Aragon]

Lets try some reading comprehension shall we.

 

 

 

 

I don't have a family and so I don't talk to my non existent family about how to handle people in our lives who choose to have gay sex.

That doesn't mean I don't know and love gay people.

But way to get out your jump to conclusions mat.

 

I actually asked if you had any gay friends because surely anyone with close relationships with gay people can realise what's problematic with Cardinal Burke's interview. I didn't ask anything about your family situation. I'm sorry if anything I have said made you think I was jumping to conclusions about family issues, but I'm not actually the one who brought the issue of family into it, you are. 

 

If you will go back and re-read the posts I think perhaps we could actually engage with the topic, which is the discourse around this issue and how it does more to alienate people than show them Christ's love and draw them to the Church.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Aragon

[veritasluxmea]

1. The repeated use of the word 'disordered' to describe homosexuality pathologises gay people. 99.99% of people are familiar with the psychiatric meaning of 'disorder', they are not familiar with the teleological meaning of the term (which is how the catechism uses it). Given this your average Catholic or non-Catholic reading Burke's words is going to take away from it that homosexuals are mentally ill. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if +Burke believed this. Certainly, many of the writers at lifesitenews.com think this is the case. 

 

2. The use of the term 'suffers from same sex attraction' rather than the appropriate 'experiences' or 'has' same sex attraction further pathologises gay people and paints their homosexuality as an illness.

I think you're painting all homosexual people with the same brush here. It's complicated, and can very very different for each person. Some people do genuinely feel they suffer from it. Some people simply feel they experience it. Some people do live a gay life and then seek treatment, feel they are "cured" and live in heterosexual relationships. Other people will experience it their whole lives and will never live in hereto relationships. Some people see it as a mental disorder or illness and seek treatment, others view it more as a part of who they are and do not seek treatment.

 

I respect both the people who feel their SSA is a mental disorder or illness and those who feel it is a more complex part of who they are. It's complicated, and I think it can be different for each person and I'm ok with people handling it differently (in line with Church Teaching, of course. Having a gay relationship is not properly handling it). I don't know enough about science and psychology to make a call, and with the current pc wars we probably won't know for a long, long time. I think what's important here is simply following Church Teaching on sex and marriage, however you choose to view or deal with the attraction in your life. 

 

 

3. I thought +Burke was going to redeem himself when he began talking about families needing to stay close to their gay relatives, however by adding "in order to try to draw the person away from a relationship which is disordered" he ignores the primary reason for staying close to gay relatives: because they're worthy of our love and are made in the image of God. 

 

I agree, but I already addressed that above.

 

 

4. On that note, while talking extensively about how disordered homosexuality is and the dangers it poses to children, Cardinal Burke completely neglects to affirm the human dignity of homosexual persons. He could have at least given some balance by presenting the Church's teaching on how homosexual people are to be accepted with "compassion, respect, and sensitivity".

 

 

I suspect Burke does respect homosexuals as worthy of our love and made in the image of God, but did not phrase it properly in this interview. (I could be wrong if someone pulls up an article with Burke saying something like "I hate gays" or talking really harshly about them personally but I haven't seen it yet.) 

 

 

Cardinal Burke's words do more to alienate people than invite them to the Church. They go on and on about the sinfulness of homosexuality without once affirming the dignity of the homosexual person.

 

Fair enough, and I would like to see that too. Still, this is just a short interview to a Catholic reporter addressing Catholics issues- in all fairness he doesn't need to bring up every Church Teaching about the issue. I guess if in every interview any Catholic gave about homosexuality they affirmed the dignity of homosexual people it'd be helpful to people who happen to come across it, but still. 

 

 

Do you have close gay friends or family members? Is this how you'd talk about them?

 

Is that how I would talk about them? No, but it is how I'd talk about homosexual activity. If you think that's wrong, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think there are disordered people, just people with disorders, so I wouldn't go around saying "Uncle Johnny is disordered, huh." 

 

If you think homosexual activity is disordered, will some people take that personally? Probably. Frankly, if you disagree with gay sex people will disagree with you. In real life, I'd try my best to discuss it in a way that helps people where they are, understanding their need, addressing underlying issues as I sense them, while still being honest and open about what Catholics believe, my relationship with God, and life as a Catholic. 

[Benedictus]

This is my thoughts so far:
1. SSA isn't a mental disorder - it doesn't matter that some people think it is. The church doesn't, and isn't qualified, to say that it's a psychological disorder.
2. I think the language often used by the church around 'disorder' is misleading, in terms of everyday speech.
3. Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Religious have a public responsibility to put across the best face of the church and watch what they say to the media. Some, who get lots of attention, don't do this in a rounded and informed way. Cardinals, above all else, should know better than those lower down the chain on what's taught and how to conduct themselves.
3.Opinion and belief isn't necessarily fact. People who experience SSA have more insight into the issues than most Catholics, so humility is a good start, but often lacking.
4. It doesn't matter what anyone 'thinks' someone else else 'should' do. Unless they have that problem themselves they don't really know what they'd do. People make the choices they do based on their condition and experience. Contrary views and judgements don't necessarily trump that.
5. People can disagree on some points around morality/theology. It doesn't mean they are any 'less' than others. They may be people of great faith, love and charity. God is in there doing his stuff regardless of what people think about, like, on anything.
6 I think the church, and often this board, goes on and on about homosexuality in term of 'sex'. It's like an obsession with anything and everything sexual- sex outside marriage, contraception, SSA, cohabitation, second marriage etc. All implied around doing something they shouldn't in the bedroom. Geeze. Does anyone think relationally or about other stuff? Maybe some of those annoying folks breaking all your codes are doing more struggling, more work and have more faith?
7. I think there's some sort of grace of God in the fact that so many groups have been treated like trash over the years and yet they still care enough to bother with the church and other people who must drive them nuts. I don't think I could stand it if it was me, like no way. Props to them for bothering, esp when they get nothing back alot of the time.
8. The church, and many of its followers, should treat people like they do other religions and denominations. They don't run around calling other religions sinners for having a diferent view/teaching or behaviour code. The church doesn't condemn them. But a person, or sub group, is an easy target for disdain?